2010 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre — History Extension
Contents
Introduction
This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 course in History Extension. It contains comments on candidate responses to the 2010 Higher School Certificate examination, indicating the quality of the responses and highlighting their relative strengths and weaknesses.
This document should be read along with the relevant syllabus, the 2010 Higher School Certificate examination, the marking guidelines and other support documents which have been developed by the Board of Studies to assist in the teaching and learning of History Extension.
General comments
Candidates need to be familiar with the Board’s Glossary of Key Words which contains some terms commonly used in examination questions. However, candidates should also be aware that not all questions will start with or contain one of the key words from the glossary. Questions such as ‘how?’, ‘why?’ or ‘to what extent?’ may be asked or verbs may be used which are not included in the glossary, such as ‘design’, ‘translate’ or ‘list’.
The candidates with the best responses for both Questions 1 and 2 were sophisticated in their understanding of the historiographical issues and clear in their analysis of the question. They supported their arguments with relevant evidence. It is important that candidates are aware of the work of a range of historians from ancient to contemporary so that they can select and use the most appropriate material. The analysis of the question itself is critical. Some candidates relied on prepared answers assuming that questions would be based on issues previously examined. Such responses cannot gain high marks because they do not engage with the question.
Examination questions are drawn from a range of areas throughout the syllabus, not from past examination papers. Candidates should therefore focus their preparation only on the five key questions as they are outlined with detail in the syllabus. It should not be assumed that the style of question used in 2010 will be repeated in 2011. The best preparation for this examination is to develop the skills of analysis and argument, of being prepared to make critical judgements, and to support these with an informed understanding of the traditional debates and contemporary issues in history.
Candidates should ensure that they allocate equal time to both questions. They are reminded that both questions are of equal value, so no advantage is to be gained from allocating more time to either question. They should allow time in the examination to analyse each question, to identify the focus issue, and to plan a structured and logical argument.
Section I
An understanding of the development of history to the present and of its underlying historiographical concepts are essential for a critical evaluation of the source in Question 1. In better responses candidates identified the key historiographical issues relevant to this source and constructed an informed argument that demonstrated critical judgement. Sophisticated and critical thinking in the context of historiography was evident in candidates’ knowledge both of historians and their case study, and in their application of it to the issue of the particular question. To gain higher marks, it was essential for candidates to engage with the historiographical issues that were pertinent to both the source and the question.
Question 1
Candidates are reminded that it is important to prepare a range and variety of sources including contemporary sources so that they can select those that are most appropriate to the question being asked. These sources should be considered within a conceptual, rather than chronological, framework. It is important that the evaluation of sources be integrated into the framework analysis of the source itself.
In better responses, candidates made well-supported critical judgements of the pertinent issues raised in the source. They also identified and evaluated the forms of historical communication which have influenced the way history has been constructed and recorded over time, integrating their analysis of the source with relevant evaluation of other appropriate sources. Selection of evidence from the source which supported an evaluation of the question itself rather than trying to cover all issues briefly, ensured a better quality response.
In weaker responses, candidates described aspects of the source rather than identifying and evaluating the key issues relevant to the question itself. Many of these responses were prepared answers that included discussion of sources that were not always relevant or linked to the focus of the question. Candidates are reminded to engage with the issues in the source itself and integrate their own sources into this framework, rather than the other way around.
Section II
Question 2
In better responses, candidates engaged with the question and examined the extent to which the context of the historians shaped the historical debate. These responses dealt with a range of contextual issues rather than identifying the period in which the historian wrote. Prepared answers that gave descriptive surveys of historians’ perspectives could not provide an insightful, critical and sophisticated judgement of the question as it applied to the selected areas of debate.
In the 2010 examination, responses covered all of the case studies represented in the syllabus. The two most popular case studies in each area were:
- Ancient
- Tacitus
- Thucydides
- Medieval and Early Modern
- Elizabeth
- Crusades
- Modern
- JFK
- Appeasement
- Australian
- Convict Women
- Origins of the First Australian
Candidates with better responses drew on their knowledge of a range of historians from a varied time period and made insightful observations about the ongoing nature of the debates. These responses evaluated how and why historians’ context shaped the historical debate within the chosen case study.
Better candidates dealt with historians’ methodology and purpose and linked these to the influence of context. In weaker responses, candidates tended to describe the different viewpoints of the historians rather than critically evaluating the role of context in historical debates. Use of a single source or textbook-style summary of the debate restricts the candidate’s response to a survey-style narrative and does not allow them to engage with the specific issues of the question.
Debates within case studies should not be constructed from sensationalist coverage of issues in the study. Candidates with weaker responses, especially in the JFK case study, focused on sensational personal issues, limiting the scope of the debate and the evaluation of the historiography of the study.
It is important to recognise that the case study must be evaluated in terms of its historiography. All case studies specify the use of ‘recent historiography’ and ‘interpretations’.
20110105
NSW Government